Here’s a link from a writer on another blog for CBS also taking on the argument with respect to the Constitutionality of this massive bill written by lawyers, for lawyers, and the financial, insurance and medical community special interests now with respect to the health care deform bill.
Which is now pending House approval, with the delay now being attributed to the provisions with respect to publicly funded abortions.
Which are already publicly funded due to governmental grant monies given to such organizations as Planned Parenthood, who does run clinics which also provide abortions on demand according to the various state laws then as far as the timing of those abortions (with some of these federal government recipients still providing late term abortions outside even Roe at this point, and using that horrendous "partial birth" method of "puncture, section and suction" even after the 20th week and sometimes in truly "non-emergency" situations as reported by various other grassroots organizations attempting to get stricter regulation of that particular practice for women’s health and safety reasons, not totally ban consensual early term abortions or attempt to overturn Roe).
Here’s the article, and the lawyers disparate comments, with some using their legalese in order to justify the unjustifiable (as in any way, shape or form a truly federal function, but state function if any since the states are given broader powers over such matters as the more accountable government to their constituents and citizens as the founders intended):
And here’s my response as one who also has studied the "intent" of the founders and American history, which it appears that our British Bar trained lawyers tend to ignore more and more in their analysis, and judicial determinations as of late, contrary to James Madison, historically recorded as the "Father of the Constitution" warned in Constitutional construction in always bearing in mind history and intent in any such legislative or judicial proceeding:
"I’d say that of course all your sources are lawyers, and they would have to complicate this issue as is their nature.
But as James Madison said, "Do not separate text from historical background, or you will have subverted the Constitution which can only lead to an illegitimate form of government." And he should know. He did write it. Not the Supremes, nor were they ever to be with respect to American Bill of Rights issues the arbiter of broad based "precedent" on Constitutionality, simply on the cases "at bar" on the facts of the matters placed before them (absent any factual matters having been reviewed by juries at any stage of the litigation).
The jury actually is and was the check even on the judiciary or last step, since no judge in the nation, even the Supremes, can review any "fact" matter placed before a jury in this country. Which is why so many are calling for now grand juries also on cases now being heard more and more simply by the federal judiciary with lawyers and those courts now using court rules to negate the impact and significance in Constitutional issues of the juries more and more – and whose oaths also are to the Constitution ultimately, and not judicial precedence of higher court rulings at all. See the Constitution itself, which provides that ALL judges down to the local small claims justices of the peace’s oaths are the Constitution, and not the their "higher" level judges determinations.
Which is why the lawyers want to eliminate now jury trials also on many matters, in order to increase their power base and hold on the U.S. courts outside the juries – which do not afford them to play as many games, increase their costs and fees on appeals and such, etc. in particularly civil matters, which even in simple contractual disputes can costs tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees, and years to go through all the hoops and shenagians in order to increase the bottom line profits of many of the starving lawyers in this country, we now have so many they are creating their own work and new fields of practice through also "double speak" and lobbying efforts with the federal and state legislatures.
Which is a conflict of interest to begin with, lawyers of course being inherently members of the judicial branch to begin with and the only branch that now controls all three branches in many states, and is afforded to cross at will between them whether in public service, or private practice.
This law is definitely unconstitutional. The Constitution was intended to limit the government, especially with respect to taxation and also freedom. The Boston Tea Party was as much about taxation without representation (which we have today, since all those candidates accept unconstitutional funding for their campaigns outside their legislative districts by huge out of district, out of state, and now even global corporate donors across the board, and had no inherent power to enact any campaign finance laws outside those intended by the founders for a representative government) as it was about the East India Company and the "sovereignty" granted to corporate interests that removed freedom and the choices of Americans for global and foreign gain in the purchase of even the tea they were mandated to purchase for the sovereign’s and its benefactors gain.
The federal government uses the "general welfare" clause for everything now that comes down the pike that is outside their limited jurisdiction and authority. And there is no such clause. It is merely stated in the "preamble" as the "intent" of the Constitution, and also prior to the enumeration of their powers in the article and section describing just what the federal government had power and jurisdiction over.
And health care and health insurance, as a "product" is not within their jurisdiction. If even such a Constitutional violation as any "mandates" on health care coverage were even to be entertained at all, then in such event the least that would be required would be strict oversight of both the practices and the costs of those policies in order to protect the American people and their property," i.e., their very lives and their bankbooks.
And in consulting with the "stakeholders" over this legislation, rather than placing either such strict regulations and accountability, rather than fining the public or a valid Constitutional amendment before the people (per the 9th) just goes to show that the financial and health care industries and sectors are now nothing more than "state actors" who are part and branches of the U.S. government itself at this point. A public payer policy with state oversight and management as within the state’s jurisdiction on accountability and funding is already in effect in ever state in the nation at this point, but the state’s are wishing to also pass the buck unlawfully in order to gain that revenue now for discretionary purposes since so many are now under balanced budget initiatives due to higher and higher taxation on the people that is obviously bankrupting more and more each and every year.
Ben is rolling over about now. Since this bill impinges on so many rights of Americans (privacy of their health records, a "property taking" without their express consent, "unlawful" taxation in those "mandatory" provisions, etc.) that it is actually treasonous to even entertain such a bill in its current form, rather than protect the citizenry and regulate their practices – especially those global industries doing business in this country now unrestrained at both the state AND federal levels.
And are all those state monies that are now directed toward health care on the state levels going to be returned? I doubt it. The states are now instigators in much of this legislation in order to use the feds to gain more revenue then for discretionary purposes also for their own gain and power trips over the citizens.
Abominable. And leave it to lawyers, the ones that wrote this 2,000 page bunch of legalese, to attempt to "justify" their treason – since they are, after all, the ones who most of the lackeys on the Hill for big businesses consult in order to advise them not in following the Constitution, but how to skirt around it at every level now imaginable.
And just where did they get all those profits in order to stage the most massive campaign ever for this reform? Your premium dollars.
Just think how much more damage they can do in negating even even more accountability, and investing in even more high risk profits with your dollars when ALL Americans are "ordered" to purchase their product, or else.
I think they truly are attempting, with such legislation, to wipe out the baby boomers as soon as possible. Now that they’ve already spent all that other "mandatory" taxation under Social Security for their other discretionary expenditures.
And the cookie jar is now empty due to fiscal mismanagement, using the ultimate coverup. Reduce the base, reduce the obligation.
Truly Machiavellian, actually from a "fiscal management" perspective on the part of now U.S.A., Inc. in this public/private merger they have facilitated for "the state" and "the global economy," of those publicly traded insurance and health care sector stocks which wants to max out profits reaping in those premium dollars, yet reduce their risk and losses using their campaign funded representatives as their marketing and advertising directors. Just think how this will also reduce some of their advertising and marketing budgets also with mandatory coverage and purchase of their products now demanded for Americans upon risk of IRS sanctions. With no real restraints also on the IRS even after the plethora of complaints on their seizures of Americans incomes for political purposes with the exception of another governmentally created agency, the Taxpayer Advocacy Office, that is nothing but another extension for the most part of the IRS also, although "officially" reportable to Congress rather than the President and Secretary of the Treasury. What’s the difference since they are all paid from the same revenue gained from stripping Americans of the fruits of their labor, rather than the taxation methods the founders intended – indirect taxation on purchased property and products, and trade agreements and import/export taxes for agricultural and manufactured goods.
It seems next up might be budgeting for the wafers ala "Soylent Green," since it appears the states are marching right along in passing those euthanasia laws also favored by both industry, and the global agnostic/atheist/geneticists who are behind a great deal of this "science based technology," focus as of late.
I mean, several New Jersey rabbis were just arrested for dealing in black market body parts shipped from Israel, earmarked for Americans in need of transplants, with Washington still not accountable to the American people for the costs or extent of provision of those blue ribbon policies that are being provided for those holding federal or state offices throughout the nation, some of which are receiving six figures salaries plus with benefits included, and now those that are being stripped of their assets in order to provide for those able to afford private plans and governmental provision are going to also now collect another unaccountable source of revenue in fining Americans, many of which are now jobless and homeless, for not laying out whatever hard earned cash they have left for those premiums which are not at all tied to the CPI, or even minimally regulated insofar as "renewals" or premium amounts, or even reinvestment of those premiums?
With America holding the bag for AIG (British based) debts, are some of those fines and fees and premium dollars going to bulk up some of those foreign and globally owned insurers yet again at the American public’s expense in order to "stabilize" their economies? The ones whose dollar and Euros already are, in comparison, have more purchasing power while ours is sinking to the level of the peso?
Fiscally, and Constitutionally, I think Madison would state unequivocally and without question, America has lost its way by subverting and eliminating at this point any shadow of the government on which those founders gave their blood and sacred honors to secure.
Leave Your Comments